Friday, February 15, 2013

Evolutionist Professor Quotes Laplace

Getting Destroyed

The brilliant Isaac Newton could harmonize Aristotle’s super- and sub-lunar worlds, show that nature’s laws were universal and in the process explain how the solar system worked, but the Cambridge professor could not explain how the solar system arose or how it will end. Most troublesome was his finding that the planets circling about the Sun formed one giant accident waiting to happen. One day the planets were liable to careen about and the only solution seemed to be an occasional divine finger to adjust the errant machine. That sent Newton’s continental nemesis Gottfried Leibniz into his own instability, for the Lutheran co-founder of calculus could not envision God creating a less than optimal world. Certainly not a world so crude so as to be in need of occasional adjustment. Newton also said that his new physics was not capable of evolving the solar system in the first place. Like Adam’s naval, the planets had to get their start somehow other than their normal operation. Did God then also have to interfere with His creation to set the planets initially in their orbits and with the proper speeds?

Newton had left the world in a shambles and the cultural mandate was on. A respectable origins and end game were needed and a century later Pierre Laplace supplied both. His Nebular Hypothesis described a condensing cosmic cloud that evolved the solar system and the brilliant Frenchman solved Newton’s instability problem and showed the solar system to be stable after all. The planets would safely and steadily oscillate around their orbits until the end of time.

Theists could rest assured that God was, after all, the master designer, and skeptics such as Laplace could replace God with natural laws. When Napoleon wondered why the Creator was not mentioned Laplace could respond that he had no need of that hypothesis.

But while Laplace was one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, he wasn’t much of a metaphysician. Every freshman philosophy student knows that inserting natural laws doesn’t give one a theory of everything.

First there is that little problem that natural laws don’t actually explain what they’re supposed to explain (Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis was bloated with unfounded speculation and the solar system stability problem ended up being far more complex than Laplace ever imagined. The problem is so difficult that we speak of probabilities of instability). In fact what we do know today is the incredible level of fine-tuning design built into the solar system. For instance the Earth-Moon system (EM) has profound and subtle effects on the solar system stability. As one paper from 1998 explained:

Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude.

This is just one example of the fine-tuning of the solar system’s design.

And second, even if there was a convincing naturalistic narrative, it wouldn’t mean one has “no need of God.” Rid yourself of God if you like, but don’t fool yourself that you have established some intellectual basis for your metaphysical priors.

This is an elementary mistake by those who desire materialism and reminds us of the cartoon showing two tiny insects on the back of a dog. As they walk through the forest of hairs the one insect says to the other, “Sometimes I wonder if there really is a dog.”

Unfortunately this reflects the level of thought not only with Laplace but in today’s atheism as well. In fact Laplace’s retort to Napoleon is one of their favorite slogans, as we were reminded this week when atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne wrote this gem in his naïve response to a challenger:

I have always argued that most scientists, including myself, take the absence of God as a provisional working hypothesis based on the history of science, for, like Laplace, we have never needed the assumption of God. I am, and have always been, willing to entertain evidence for the presence of a divine being. I just haven’t seen any.

There you have it. More cogent insights from the evolutionary camp. Their ignorance is exceeded only by volume level at which they proclaim it. As Paul warned Timothy, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

48 comments:

Many people simply presume that solar system formation is fairly well understood by science but that simply is not the case:

New study sheds new light on planet formation - July 4, 2012 Excerpt: The study,, began with a curious and unexpected finding: Within three years, the cloud of dust circling a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus stellar nursery simply disappeared."The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions," said study co-author Inseok Song,,, "What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.",,, "Many astronomers may feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has non-traditional implications," Song said, "but my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form." http://phys.org/news/2012-07-planet-formation.html

Are Saturn’s Rings Evolving? July - 2010 Excerpt: Not all is well in theories of planet formation, though. Astrobiology Magazine complained this week that many of the exoplanets discovered around other stars do not fit theories of the origin of the solar system. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100710a

Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets; Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110223b

Ancient alien planets shake up view of our early universe - March 2012 Excerpt: Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they're just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.,,, It is widely accepted that planets coalesce from the swirling disks of dust and gas that surround young stars. Classical models of planet formation hold that metal-poor stars are unlikely to harbor planets, while worlds should form far more easily around metal-rich suns. But recent discoveries, including the HIP 11952 system, have astronomers rethinking these models. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46910290/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T3dzpdX5a6N

Medium size worlds upset “Earth is not unique” planet modelling - January 2012 Excerpt: But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be. http://www.uncommondescent.com/cosmology/medium-size-worlds-upset-earth-is-not-unique-planet-modelling/

The Fine tuning of the orbits in the Solar system so as to allow the Earth to remain in the 'habitability zone' necessary for life, as you alluded to Dr. Hunter, is extraordinary:

Weird Orbits of Neighbors Can Make 'Habitable' Planets Not So Habitable - May 2010http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100524143419.htm

Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html

Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design

Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets - September 2011Excerpt: Today, such processes as planet formation details, tidal forces, plate tectonics, magnetic field evolution, and planet-planet, planet-comet, and planet-asteroid gravitational interactions are found to be relevant to habitability.,,, What's more, not only are more requirements for habitability being discovered, but they are often found to be interdependent, forming a (irreducibly) complex "web." This means that if a planetary system is found not to satisfy one of the habitability requirements, it may not be possible to compensate for this deficit by adjusting a different parameter in the system. - Guillermo Gonzalezhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/among_darwin_advocates_prematu050871.html

And if one looks closer at the details, we find parameter after parameter (816 thus far) that must be within a certain range to permit life on earth for any reasonable extended period of time,,

Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ≈ 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ≈ 10^22

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf

But the thing that really sets the privileged planet argument apart from just merely being an appeal to the extreme rarity of the conditions necessary to host life on any given planet in the solar system is the 'observability correlation',,

The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.- Jay Richards

That the solar system would be 'set up' for observation, and scientific discovery, is very interesting to consider, for, besides being 'very suspicious' as Dr. Richards put it in the video, it is found that conscious observation is central to quantum theory.

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Moreover, solar system formation, as is currently held today in modern science, is built on somewhat of a Deistic model found within General Relativity, in that God is presupposed to be completely hands off the universe after He created the universe, but quantum mechanics, which exceeds the primacy of General Relativity as to explaining reality, shows that a non-local', beyond space-time, cause must be invoked to explain the continued existence of the universe:

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

But while Laplace was one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, he wasn’t much of a metaphysician. Every freshman philosophy student knows that inserting natural laws doesn’t give one a theory of everything.

Was that Laplace's claim,the theory of everything? Or was his claim that Newton's Divine force was not needed to maintain the stability of the solar system? In other words God was not needed in his equation.

After all if God was needed that is a religious statement and we all know your desire to keep science and religion separate,

First there is that little problem that natural laws don’t actually explain what they’re supposed to explain (Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis was bloated with unfounded speculation and the solar system stability problem ended up being far more complex than Laplace ever imagined

It is almost like all science is provisional, that improved technology allows science to improve.

So the question is for the IDist's theorists" Is the solar system designed or the result of those nature laws? Does the solar system require the finger of God or was Laplace correct that natural laws are sufficent".

And second, even if there was a convincing naturalistic narrative, it wouldn’t mean one has “no need of God.”

MOSCOW — A meteor streaked through the sky and exploded Friday over Russia's Ural Mountains with the power of an atomic bomb, its sonic blasts shattering countless windows and injuring more than 750 people. The spectacle deeply frightened thousands, with some elderly women declaring the world was coming to an end.

Yes it was, and it is Coyne's claim as well. Laplace ended up a determinist, believing that everything proceeds according to the laws of physics and if you just had a computer powerful enough, and all the data at a particular time, then you could compute all the interactions and integrate the motions, to any time that you like and know the future. Coyne is a religious fundamentalist who insists evolution occurred because his god never would have made this world.

"Coyne is a religious fundamentalist who insists evolution occurred because his god never would have made this world."

Cornelius, why do you persist in such deceitful distortions of the truth? Someone who does NOT believe in a god is NOT religious. YOU are a religious fundamentalist. Your religiously polluted brain sees everything as religiously motivated even when there's NO religious motivation in atheists.

The blinding religious fog bank you live in is a self made prison and you are thoroughly institutionalized. You can get out of that imprisoning fog bank if you want to. I know that you have doubts about your religious beliefs but as an institutionalized prisoner of your religious fundamentalism you're afraid of the outside world. The world outside of religion really isn't as scary as your dogma would have you believe. In fact, reality is fascinating and stimulating. There's so much to see, study, and share if you would just step out of the fog.

If there is any doubt about the fact that "Religion drives science" for Cornelius, it should be dispelled in this post.

Still waiting for CH to share his hypothesis on an alternative to evolution, despite numerous requests in previous posts, which of course he just ignores. And to address the questions whether he thinks ID is a viable hypothesis.

BA77 - Rather than actually engage with the OP, you seem to have a knack for posting endless amounts of links and often irrelevant information. I actually think it's rude, because you are distracting from the author's original post and trying to make it all about you.

Perhaps if you're lucky somebody might follow one of your links. I'm guessing most people are like me though - we IGNORE them.

Try actually engaging with the discussion rather than just this endless spam. Nobody has the hours in the day to read all your stuff.

Or if you are that passionate about all the important things you have to share, create your own blog.

We could ask Coyne,but Laplace's meaning in that particular statement is more difficult to evaluate. I am sort of surprised at your certainty,you seem to be ignoring other explanations.

"This( that God must intervene periodically )however, was a pure supposition suggested to Newton by an incomplete view of the conditions of the stability of our little world. Science was not yet advanced enough at that time to bring these conditions into full view. But Laplace, who had discovered them by a deep analysis, would have replied to the First Consul that Newton had wrongly invoked the intervention of God to adjust from time to time the machine of the world (la machine du monde) and that he, Laplace, had no need of such an assumption. It was not God, therefore, that Laplace treated as a hypothesis, but his intervention in a certain place."

Curiously it appears that in that instance Laplace was correct, the mathematics of motion do not require God to balance the books.

Laplace ended up a determinist, believing that everything proceeds according to the laws of physics and if you just had a computer powerful enough, and all the data at a particular time, then you could compute all the interactions and integrate the motions, to any time that you like and know the future.

Determinism and a belief in God are not a logical contradiction , I believe it is known as deism. God exists but is not a meddler.

Vel, turn on your faucet and fill up a pan of water. Design or natural law?

Good question, both. The design uses the laws of material world to accomplish its goal. It is bound by those laws in implementing the design. Even intelligence cannot abrogate those limits,only rearrange them.

Just as a God could use those laws of the material world which He created to accomplish His goals. Of course one might suppose the sophistication of an omniscient being would be greater than a finite 21 st century being.But there is no way to know with an inscrutable Being.

As far as the meteor, we do know that the meteor was drawn into the earth's atmosphere by gravitation pull and it disintegrated (fortunately) according the the laws of physics. The earth's atmostpheric shield did a good job.

At a minimum I think that God is indirectly responsible for the meteor because he created the laws of physics. I do think that there is a difference between direct acts of God and things like this that can be explained by a consistent application of physics.

The consistent application of physical law was what the founders of science saw God as being responsible for. All things hold together by the Logos (word, logic) of his power.

This is certainly an interesting subject that is enriched by belief in God. Atheists put it into a narrow and depressing straightjacket of scientism. Better to leave all the options are open.

I think of this basic analogy. Through intelligent design man is able to craft an airplane that can overcome the law of gravity by utilizing the law of aerodynamics. I believe God is able to utilize the most fundamental laws, including the fabric of time itself.

If we were to see a football field size space ship hurling into earth, we would say that both design (of the ship) and natural law (gravity) was responsible.

We can see how a meteorite can be formed by consistent application of natural law. We do not see how life comes from non life by unguided chemical processes. In this analogy, life is the space ship, reproduction of life from life is the natural law.

What in our universe required design beyond the operation of unguided physics? I think we know enough about biology to know that life does not come from non-life without intelligent guidance. I also think that genuine animal speciation doesn't appear to happen without guidance either.

Another analogy. A truck is intelligently designed. It's origin required intelligent design and assembly. This process is completely different than the day to day operation of truck. The truck runs according to its design parameters - hopefully : ). But the normal operation of truck and understanding how it functions is a completely separate issue than its Origin. Of course, trucks do not reproduce... however all we see in life is like reproducing like and nothing else.

I think most of what we see in variation is within the design parameters of the life form. There is an incredible amount of contingency built into life that hasn't been fully appreciated. Have a nice weekend.

"Design or natural law? God's Will or bad luck? A message or physics?"

It is interesting to note that 'natural law', and physics, was originally discovered, and elucidated, by Christian Theists, such as Newton, Kepler and Galileo, because they believed in a lawgiver who governed this universe. As to physics, General Relativity had, even before the discovery of the Cosmic Background, forced science to consider the ex-nihilo creation of the entire universe (Lemaître).,, Quantum Mechanics has gone even further than General Relativity and, in the words of Eugene Wigner, shown "that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality". ,,, As to 'Natural Law', the fine-tuning of 'Natural Law' for life in the universe is now found to be so precise that it has atheists postulating infinite untestable universes to 'explain away' that we have now found, a most un-parsimonious explanation to put it mildly.,, Thus neither physics nor 'natural law' is conducive to an atheistic worldview. But why does Vel present this issue of 'natural evil' as if belief in God is somehow diametrically opposed to belief in physics and/or Natural Law?? The reason why is simply because Vel, as with Darwin before him, has failed to reconcile the problem of 'natural' evil with the reality of a infinitely good God. But Christian Theists never claimed we were in heaven in the first place, but that we live in a fallen world. Thus why should vel presuppose heavenly perfection in a fallen world so as rail against God? He clearly has a distorted view of reality.,, As CS Lewis wisely put it:

“If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad.” –CS Lewis God in the Dock, page 52

Music and verse:

Natalie Grant - Heldhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GDUBd2eWFw

Luke 13:4-5Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

This is certainly an interesting subject that is enriched by belief in God. Atheists put it into a narrow and depressing straightjacket of scientism. Better to leave all the options are open.

That is essentially my question,how does one separate out the " god effect" from the laws of nature effect? Is all unexplained phenomenon the " god effect" , per Newton? How can we measure God? After all that is what science does, measure things.Are you familiar with occasionalism, concurrentism and mere conservationism?

I think of this basic analogy. Through intelligent design man is able to craft an airplane that can overcome the law of gravity by utilizing the law of aerodynamics. I believe God is able to utilize the most fundamental laws, including the fabric of time itself.

By definition God is capable of supernatural actions, whereas human intelligence is not.

We can see how a meteorite can be formed by consistent application of natural law. We do not see how life comes from non life by unguided chemical processes. In this analogy, life is the space ship, reproduction of life from life is the natural law.

We may be in exactly in Newton's place. He thought the natural law that governs motion was inadequate, He introduced X, the unknown power of God. Laplace found an answer to overcome the problem without the introduction of a Deus ex Machina. God was unharmed in the process.

The problem is where does our proven ignorance,after al we are finite beings, account for the unknown and the unknown power of God start and stop?

Is it helpful to further acquisition of knowledge or hinder it?

What in our universe required design beyond the operation of unguided physics? I think we know enough about biology to know that life does not come from non-life without intelligent guidance. I also think that genuine animal speciation doesn't appear to happen without guidance either.

Just as Newton was convinced that God must be in the equation for celestial movements, just as those who believe disease was caused by the divine. So this is where we part, I think it is way too early to put God into the equation. It adds nothing. It is a factor which defies the laws that science studies.

It is the easy way out. It also seems conceited to believe that our present knowledge of biology is definitive enough to require God's direct intervention as an answer. Unless our religious belief requires it.

As to physics, General Relativity had, even before the discovery of the Cosmic Background, forced science to consider the ex-nihilo creation of the entire universe (Lemaître

As I understand it , not ex nihilo, from a singularity. You are correct,the good Jesuit father,did propose the " Big Bang"' in direct conflict with the ID hero Fred Hoyle.

But why does Vel present this issue of 'natural evil' as if belief in God is somehow diametrically opposed to belief in physics and/or Natural Law?? The reason why is simply because Vel, as with Darwin before him, has failed to reconcile the problem of 'natural' evil with the reality of a infinitely good God

Except for the fact that I didn't even mention evil. My unanswered question is how does one separate the design from the natural when dealing with an unknown designer with unknown powers and unknown goals. Does everything require require primary causation by the designer/ god or can nature provide direct causation? And how do we know it?

But Christian Theists never claimed we were in heaven in the first place, but that we live in a fallen world. Thus why should vel presuppose heavenly perfection in a fallen world so as rail against God? He clearly has a distorted view of reality.,,

Are you hallucinating BA? Nothing you are saying is remotely what I believe or said. Seriously provide evidence that I am arguing imperfect design equals no God, or railing against God. And Amy Grant? Ice pick in the eardrum is preferable

If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad

"It could be worse" , high praise for a design. "Your car may blow up and kill the occupants but just think of the good mileage it gets"

Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish

Better be good and submissive or I will drop a ton of debris on you. Or maybe I will anyway. Nice Guy

"Cornelius, why do you persist in such deceitful distortions of the truth? Someone who does NOT believe in a god is NOT religious."

While the term 'religious' is usually applied to those who believe in the existence of a god or gods, it is not exclusive to such beliefs. Any one can be deemed religious if he holds strictly to a set of beliefs. Therefore, one can be classified as religious if he is devoted to the teachings of Socrates for example.

awstar: "No one knows, but those who believe the Bible (especially prophecy regarding the end times) aren't surprised when things fall from the heavens above."

Stuff has been falling from the sky forever. For billions and millions of years.

Where is your data to suggest that the frequency is now increasing? Same for volcanoes and earthquakes? If you can show some statistical significance in increased frequency, that might be interesting. But honestly, this sounds like the normal wishful thinking Christians like to do to convince themselves we are living in the "end times".

I think it interesting to find the solar system is balanced with feedback loops, system upon system interactions and very stable. Same type of construction we find at the cellular and molecular level to name two. On the face of it, it doesn't appear random at all. It does seem incredible.Powerful and intelligent God must be.

Was that Laplace's claim,the theory of everything? Or was his claim that Newton's Divine force was not needed to maintain the stability of the solar system? In other words God was not needed in his equation.

After all if God was needed that is a religious statement and we all know your desire to keep science and religion separate

What a dufus. Both statements, 'God is needed' and 'God is not needed' are religious statements. Get a clue and, when you find it, share it among your fellow brain-dead evolutionists. They need it real bad. LOL.

Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?

Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?

If you are a Christian then you have no choice but to believe the future is already determined.

One attribute of the Christian God is omniscience, He knows all that can be known. If God exhibits knowledge of the future then it must already exist - already be determined - in order for it to be known. God shows knowledge of the future in the Bible therefore it must already exist.

For a Christian there can be no free will. However much they believe they might be choosing freely, if their God exists then it is an illusion.

If you are a Christian then you have no choice but to believe the future is already determined.

I am a Christian but that does not mean that I believe every stupid crap that some brain-dead Christians believe in. It's not just evolutionists that are stupid. I don't worship either Christians or Christianity. Hell, I don't worship the Bible either. That would be idolatry. I only worship the creator.

One attribute of the Christian God is omniscience, He knows all that can be known. If God exhibits knowledge of the future then it must already exist - already be determined - in order for it to be known. God shows knowledge of the future in the Bible therefore it must already exist.

This is hogwash. The Christian God certainly does not know everything. Genesis mentions that God regretted creating man at one point. How can you know everything and have regrets?

If God gives us a prophecy about the future, it's not because he can see a future that is already predetermined, but because he has the power to make certain things happen if he so chooses.

Use those two neurons between your ears and get a clue. Evolutionists are more pathetic in their religiosity than those that they accuse of being religious.

I am a Christian but that does not mean that I believe every stupid crap that some brain-dead Christians believe in. It's not just evolutionists that are stupid. I don't worship either Christians or Christianity. Hell, I don't worship the Bible either. That would be idolatry. I only worship the creator.

You can call yourself a Christian but that does not mean that you speak for the whole or even the majority of Christians or that they share your beliefs.

When I was a Christian, the doctrine was most certainly that omniscience and omnipotence were attributes of God. If you reject that, you are denying that God is the Supreme Being. That leads to two consequences: first, it demotes God to just one of an unknown number of other highly-advanced and powerful aliens and, second, it undermines any claim of supreme moral authority.

This is hogwash. The Christian God certainly does not know everything.

Really? He's confirmed this to you personally?

Genesis mentions that God regretted creating man at one point. How can you know everything and have regrets?

You don't worship the Bible but you still cite it as an authority on what God thinks and feels?

If God gives us a prophecy about the future, it's not because he can see a future that is already predetermined, but because he has the power to make certain things happen if he so chooses.

The problem for Christians is that the Bible is inconsistent, eve contradictory.

In Genesis, God warns Adam that he will certainly die on the day he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That doesn't happen. Adam and Eve are tossed out of Eden and he lives to be 900 or so.

On the other hand, in the New Testament, Jesus predicts that Peter will disown him three times, which is what actually happens according to the story.

Apart from the fact the the two stories are contradictory concerning God's powers, the prediction concerning Peter is evidence of knowledge of the future which in turn implies that the future already exists, in other words, all is predetermined.

You are an idiot, Spedding. It's a good thing you are no longer a Christian. God knows Christianity can do without more idiots like you. LOL. And, by all means, be an evolutionist. They, on the other hand, welcome morons like you with open arms. LOL.

"In Genesis, God warns Adam that he will certainly die on the day he eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That doesn't happen. Adam and Eve are tossed out of Eden and he lives to be 900 or so."

Yes, Ian, Adam does die as God said he would. True, it was 900 years later, but as Adam was created to live eternally, dying 900 years later does not alter the fact he did die. In fact he began to die the day he ate the fruit.

"Apart from the fact the the two stories are contradictory concerning God's powers, the prediction concerning Peter is evidence of knowledge of the future which in turn implies that the future already exists, in other words, all is predetermined.

They are in no way contradictory. Knowing the future does not mean the future is predetermined. I know if I let go of a hammer in a place where gravity is in play, it will fall to the ground. However, it is not predetermined that I will indeed let go of the hammer. So I can in fact know future events will occur without them being predetermined.

"For a Christian there can be no free will. However much they believe they might be choosing freely, if their God exists then it is an illusion."

This is logical nonsense. Knowledge of the future does not demand predetermination. Because an omnipotent being can know what choices will be made does not mean the individual making those choices does not possess free will.

Also, knowing a future event does not mean that event already exists. The hammer analogy applies here as well. I know when I drop the hammer that it will fall. However, it does not fall until I do, in fact, drop it. Therefore, I know the future event of the falling hammer, but the event does not exist until I drop the hammer.

What a dufus. Both statements, 'God is needed' and 'God is not needed' are religious statements.

Napoleon asks " Why no X? Laplace says" X is unecessary for my hypothesis". It is a simple statement of fact. It does not matter what x is,it is unecessary for his hypothesis,his mathematics. Now you may disagree then that is a religious belief since the existence of God is necessary for your disagreement .

1+1= 2 is not a religious statement, saying that 1+1= 2 is a religious statement is a religious statement.Comprendre?

Get a clue and, when you find it, share it among your fellow brain-dead evolutionists. They need it real bad. LOL

You need to punch up your patter, it sounds like you are a sixteen year old valley girl.

Laplace, like Einstein after him and Newton before him, believed in determinism. But we all know that determinism is pure unmitigated crackpottery, don't we now?

Make your case, preferably in non religious statements,else any response make be misinterpreted as religious

Yet now, in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

In other words, if my conscious choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happen to be in in the past (deterministic) how in blue blazes are my choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?

Breaking the limits of classical physics - June 2012 Excerpt: In the quantum world objects can also have a position and a velocity, but not at the same time. At the atomic level, quantum mechanics says that nature behaves quite differently than you might think. It is not just that we do not know the position and the velocity, rather, these two things simply do not exist simultaneously.,,, In classical physics, light possesses both an electric and a magnetic field. “What our study demonstrated was that light can have both an electric and a magnetic field, but not at the same time. We thus provide a simple proof that an experiment breaks the classical principles. That is to say, we showed light possesses quantum properties, and we can expand this to other systems as well” says Eran Kot. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-limits-classical-physics.html

One of those serendipitous little miracles that happen so often,,, This is one of the top Stories on Physorg this morning:

Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level - February 15, 2013Excerpt: It was Heisenberg who famously noted that it was impossible to measure the momentum of an object and its position at the same time. As an example, he pointed out that using a microscope to look at a single electron, would require shining light on it. Those photons would cause the electron to move slightly, changing its momentum. Up till now, researchers testing or demonstrating this principle have worked at the micro level because attempting to do so with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye seemed impossible due to the many variables at play. In this new research, the team in Colorado showed that this not necessarily the case. They started by building a square drum frame out of silicon, with each side 0.5 millimeters long. They then stretched a thin film of silicon nitride over the skin to create the drum head. The drum was placed in a vacuum between two very tiny mirrors and was chilled to just 4 degrees above absolute zero to eliminate extraneous noise. The experiment was conducted by shooting a laser at the drum and measuring how much the head was distended by the photons striking it as they were bounced back and forth between the mirrors. As more photons struck the drum, greater fluctuations occurred in the measurements recorded, distorting the readings, and proving that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can indeed be demonstrated with objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye.http://phys.org/news/2013-02-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-macro.html

If you know that X is not needed, it is precisely because you have a notion in your mind as to what X is. If X stands for God, that notion is a religious one. Again, get a effing clue.

On the subject of determinism, let me just say that the universe is probabilistic because there is no time dimension. Why? Because a time dimension would make motion impossible. Surprise! This is the reason that those in the know, know that nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime. Sir Karl Popper called it Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens. Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

If there is no time dimension, it follows that nature cannot calculate temporal intervals. The only way to prevent violations in conservation principles in the long run is to use probability. You should thank me because I just taught you the reason that a subatomic particle like the neutron has a probabilistic decay. Physicists don't know this. So be grateful, goddammit.

give the words to the the bitterly satirical critique colors wedding dresses 2013, people feel that the so-called revolution was the scene in the history of burlesque and Adger playing as funny as his mouth, he in sharp Bifeng soak into very painful feelings, people feel like Adger hit his mouth as sad. This objectively true description profound sharp anatomical characteristics of the a sober grim realism.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/